![]() Overall, after running that command, the total file sizes of all JPG images was 49MB, while the total file size of all WebP images was 29MB. Some files were dramatically smaller compared to the original JPGs, while others were actually larger. The convert command on this particular server is powered by ImageMagick 6.7.8. For example, I recently ran this command on all jpg images in a folder on a website "in the wild": convert filename.jpg -quality 80 -strip -define webp:lossless=false -define webp:method=6 filename.webp In practice, it depends a lot on your settings and your source images. convert 1.JPG 1.webp # do not specify quality 20% smaller might be a bit much of an ask, though, but it may be achievable for certain images. Just running the default conversion without specifying a lower quality may give you slightly smaller files without loss of visible quality. Quality is largely a subjective measure, but keep in mind that you're comparing a file compressed at quality 80 with a file that doesn't have that level of compression (at least, this is what I understand from your question). However, as you suggest, there in never such a thing as a free lunch. Files using the mac version of the webp command (which uses cwebp under the hood) are about 1/4 of the size of the same file compressed with ImageMagik, and do provide a significant performance boost.Īccording to Google, "WebP typically acheives an average of 30% more compression than JPG" (source) with similar visual quality to a JPG. This is especially true for images with transparency when compared to PNGs. Update Since the time of the original posting, I've discovered that using Google's cwebp compressor shows dramatically improved compression over ImageMagik 6.7.8, which is what powered my initial tests.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |